Practical Question and Answer series
For more questions and answers see the
Q&A Index.
3) How do I protect them
from the unprepared and desperate have-nots if I don't already
have a fort-knox style bunker? (Security issues)
This is a really big issue, and I'm going to post this answer
as a rough starting point to encourage discussion, and then edit
and expand it significantly based on some of the further contributions
and comments I get. It is also a subject that people are often
uncomfortable or afraid to talk about, perhaps partly because
of worries about sounding like or being associated with "survivalist
right-wing gun-nut" types. But it's very important to talk about
simply because security
is one of the scariest issues around collapse, and we aren't going
to get anywhere by avoiding unpleasant topics of conversation.
When talking about security in a collapse context we have to look
a continuum of possible aggressors. Some of them may indeed be
the unprepared and unorganized people that you mention in your
question. There will also be mid-level organized aggressors like
gangs, organized crime, or similar groups of people who band together
for self-defense and to take from the wider community. The most
organized group will be corporations, governments, and pseudogovernments,
which claim to be entitled to commandeer and appropriate
just about anything, even continents. Governments have by far
the largest capacity for violence of any of the groups, both physically
through their stockpiles of armaments and psychologically through
their self-declared monopoly on violence and sophisticated social
and means systems to justify their violence (or declare that it
isn't violence at all).
The events in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit provide
us a number of insights into the behaviour of people and government
agents during disasters (and by extension, collapse). The story
of two paramedics who teamed up with other refugees to meet basic
needs is especially illustrative. They observed that when "individuals
had to fight to find food or water, it meant looking out for yourself
only. You had to do whatever it took to find water for your kids
or food for your parents. When these basic needs were met, people
began to look out for each other, working together and constructing
a community." (source)
The interesting fact is that after they had set up shelters and
basic sanitation, and started to collect and distribute food and
clean water, the police arrived and demolished their shelters
and took all of their food and water! Which isn't surprising if
you look at the global and historical precedents, but the fact
that it happened during a rather localized and temporary emergency
in a country in the "developed world" is very telling. I think
it and similar other reports from New Orleans underscore the fact
that we probably have more to worry about from police, soldiers,
and government agents than "everyday people."
Additionally, people (especially governments and experts) tend
to overestimate how violent and chaotic people actually are in
disasters and emergencies. Psychiatrist Martha Wolfenstein examined
this tenancy in her book Disaster: A Psychological Essay and concludes
that the vast majority of people are actually quite calm (or at
least nonviolent) in emergencies, and are generally more understanding and cooperative towards
others than they usually are. Governments, experts, the corporate
media and the producers of mass generally like to exaggerate how
violent and chaotic people are in emergencies. Governments do
that to help promote fear and dependency and to justify their
own existence and increased control measures. The media likes
to do it for more exiting film and television and to gain viewer
attention. (How many people would watch Mad Max all the way through if it was about
people sedately getting along, fixing their windmill, making
dinner, and then getting into an argument and having a long drawn-out
discussion to resolve their conflict?)
To return to the concrete an recent example of New Orleans, numerous
commentators observed after the fact that there was a lot of exaggeration
about how much mob violence actually occurred. (See stories from
The
Seattle Times, The
St. Petersburg Times, and the BCC News.) And
it turns out that one of the main sources of reports about rioting
in New Orleans, extremely rich white guy Finis Shelnutt, was not
only a liar but a very nasty character in general.
Keeping all of that in mind, our strategy and tactics will differ
greatly depending on the type of aggressor we are concerned about.
Obviously the first priority will be to avoid conflict in the
first place, if possible. The cause of conflict in your question
was a shortage of supplies, and the potential aggressors are disorganized.
So the easiest way to avoid conflict in that case is to make sure
that there are enough essential supplies to go around
for your neighbours. The two paramedics noted above observed that
approach to be very effective in New Orleans. In my previous
answer about shortages, I outlined four strategies to deal
with the problem: stocking-up and conserving, substitution and
localization, improvisation, and restructuring. Stocking
up is a difficult one in this case, because unless you are extremely
well off you can't stock up enough consumables for everyone in
your neighbourhood. However, you can definitely encourage other
people in your neighbourhood to think about and plan for challenges
relating to Peak Oil and industrial collapse. Generally if you have tools and other industrially
produced, durable items, you can share and help other people make
what they need. You could start a community workshop, for example,
where tools and skills could be shared. For substitution and localization,
things like seeds will be very important. You'll want to have
access to a variety of seeds to grow food for your climate and
soils, and you'll want to have enough to share. The other strategies
are all about sharing skills you have, and learning from other
people so that your entire neighbourhood and your entire community
can meet its needs. That's why I think that community sufficiency is much more important
than just self-sufficiency.
Ecological skills are very important to learn and share along
with everyday living skills, because if your neighbours aren't
sustainable then eventually they will destroy their own landbase
and be unable to meet their needs. Without sustainability, conflict
is inevitable.
If the conflict is not based on shortages, or shortages are only
part of the problem, there are a number of techniques you may
want to try to de-escalate the conflict and avoid violence. Non-violent
communication is definitely a useful skill in general (see the
Center for Nonviolent Communication and the book
Nonviolent Communication
by Marshall Rosenberg), as are a variety of other skills for non-violent
conflict mediation and resolution. For more resources, you
can refer to places like resources of The Nonviolence
Training Project, and Training
for Change.
Unfortunately, there are some situations where it is not possible
to avoid a conflict. When Europeans first invaded the Americas,
the indigenous inhabitants tried all manner of non-violent conflict
resolution and avoidance, but no non-violent efforts could have
stopped the invasion. That's how civilization works. On a small-scale,
between people who are honestly and sincerely interested in the
process, non-violent conflict resolution can work. But as indigenous
and other marginalized people have learned again and again, governments
and corporations are more interested in paying lip-service to
the idea so that the people they want to exploit won't put up
a fight.
If conflict can't be avoided, you have a couple of options. One,
you can try to avoid actual physical confrontations or violence.
Or two, an extension of the first, you can try to delay and maneuver
until a confrontation occurs in a place and manner that is more
likely to yield a favourable outcome. (Like most people I know
I find the idea of violent conflict is very repellent, but unfortunately
my reluctance to be violent doesn't seem to stop people who want
to be violent towards me or those I care about.)
For both of these options, there are a few variables to take into
account:
Remoteness is how far
you are away from potential aggressors. Ask yourself, "Can we
be far enough away that it will be to difficult or inconvenient
for aggressors to reach us?" If you are far away it will take
more time, energy and resources for them to act aggressively
towards you. You may also have more warning. Remoteness can make
a violent conflict less likely because an aggressor may be more
hesitant if they are at a disadvantage because of those problems.
On the other hand, if you deliberately choose a remote place to
live you may also be further away from possible allies who
might aid you, or by their mere presence dissuade possible aggressors.
So for example, it might be tempting for some to live in some
remote cabin far away from larger populations. But that could
be less secure than living in a particular suburb with helpful
neighbours nearby should some roving marauders decide that they
want to steal from you. You can get the best of both worlds by
having multiple locations that members of your community can go
to depending on changing situations.
Mobility is how fast you
can move, for how long you can keep moving, and over what terrain
you can move. "Can we move fast and far enough that aggressors
can't catch up to us?" If you can move faster than aggressors
you can simply stay ahead of or away from them, or move over terrain
that is impassible to them (like water). Simple vehicles like
bicycles or canoes can dramatically increase your mobility. But
there are a few disadvantages to avoiding conflict through mobility.
Many people have physical disabilities or impairments that limit
mobility, so you will have to adjust your strategy or make accommodations
for people in your community with limited mobility. Also, an increase
in mobility usually means a decrease in the ability to carry supplies,
so you will have to be more able to live off the land or trade
or share with people in different areas. And lastly, the world
is getting pretty crowded, so you may have problems are territory
and trespassing depending on where you want to go.
Camouflage and concealment
are about reducing your own visibility to aggressors, or reducing
the visibility of things that might cause them to act aggressively
towards you. "Can we be hidden so that the aggressors won't see
or find us, or so that they see no benefit from bothering us?"
Depending on your situation, that might mean making your entire
shelter(s) concealed or camouflaged, or it might simply mean living
somewhere "off the beaten track." It's pretty difficult to conceal
a field of crops or settlement of any significant size from someone
walking right by, but you can make it less visible from the air
or from a distance. Probably a generally more applicable strategy
would be to conceal the supplies themselves. This can be done
through the creative use of concealed supply caches near where
you live, or through hidden rooms or compartments. You can also
use decoys, structures or objects that look significant but have
no actual value. For instance you could place numerous empty caches
or cache-markers, or you could place a cache containing metal
in a junkyard or area with plenty of other metal to render a metal
detector ineffective.
Intelligence and reconnaissance
refers to the information you have about the location and nature
of possible aggressors, and also the information that they have
about you. "Can we know enough about the aggressors that we can
make an ideal response, or make think we are too dangerous or
unrewarding to bother?" That allows you to avoid them physically
and geographically, or to craft a more appropriate response and
strategy. Unorganized aggressors will probably have poor intelligence
about you, whereas more organized groups will have better intelligence
and likely be more of a worry. You can gain improved intelligence
by using telescopes and binoculars, look-out locations, scouts,
and by monitoring radio communications. Depending on where you
are your intelligence may come from other people who live in the
area. You can also impair an aggressor's intelligence through
misinformation. For example, in European-derived societies many
indigenous groups have or had a reputation for being fearsome
and dangerous. Certainly the majority of this is perception results
from negative European propaganda. In some cases, though, indigenous
groups may have encouraged their reputation of being fearsome
and dangerous to make it less likely that others would attack
them.
Terrain is also an important
consideration which affects all the others. "Can we be on land
or water where we have the advantage or aggressors would not bother
to follow us?" Rough terrain may be conducive to concealment but
not to mobility. A group on horseback can move quickly over open
terrain, but would be impaired in a dense forest. An urban environment
may actually be more suitable for concealment or camouflage than
a remote wilderness environment. In the wilderness any humans
or human objects may stick out, but more urban environment can
make it easier for you to blend in with all of the other people
and make it easier to disguise or conceal structures.
Numbers and population
of your group are important to consider as well. "Can we
be so numerous that they would be afraid to try to bother us,
or small enough that they wouldn't notice us?" The old saying
is that "there's safety in numbers," which is certainly true in
many ways. The more of there you are the bigger a fight you could
likely put up. The downside is that larger groups are harder to
coordinate, are generally less mobile, and require more land to
provide for their needs. There is also more potential for conflict
within the group, and large groups may attract more unwanted attention
than smaller and less conspicuous groups.
All of those are things
to consider when trying to delay or alter the circurcumstances
around confrontations or armed engagements. The strategy
and tactics of actual participation in armed engagements are beyond
the scope of my answer here. If you are interested, you might
benefit a lot from reading about general military strategy and
tactics, including works by strategists like Sun
Tzu, Carl von Clausewitz
and Miyamoto Musashi. You
can also read, for purely academic purposes, specific manuals
and "Field Guides" published by militaries about their tactics
which will help you gain a broader understanding of strategy and
tactics and specifically the tactics used by governments and militaries
against "insurgents". You can look at the Special
Forces Guerilla Warfare Manual, The
Counter-Insurgency Manual, and this online online
discussion of guerilla warfare.
And lastly, of course, the issue of guns. For many people, especially
leftist or nonviolent types, the idea of owning or using a gun
is likely to provoke slight-to-severe discomfort. I can understand
that, and guns make me uncomfortable as well. However, being uncomfortable
and unknowledgeable about guns isn't going going to help you cope
with armed aggressors. Every person and community has to make
their own decisions about whether to get and practice with guns,
but it's an important decision that deserves serious thought and
consideration. An In the Wake contributor is currently working
on a primer about guns and issues related to them, and I'll post
that here when it is ready.
Update, January 9, 2006: For resources on Nonviolent
Communication, Sharai Mustatia seconds the suggestion for the
book Nonviolent Communication: A Language of
Compassion by Marshall B. Rosenberg. She also points us to
good resources at NonviolentCommunication.com.
Lastly, she recommends The Mediator's Handbook by Jennifer
E. Beer and Eileen Stief (developed by Friends Conflict Resolution
Programs). Sharai adds:
I use this book every time I am called upon
for conflict support and mediation. It is a very useful tool.
I have adapted some of the examples to suit less formal settings
for mediation. I also combine some of what is in the mediator's
handbook with some of what is in the NVC book.
Both books have proven to be invaluable to me. Especially since
I have been able to use them to build my reputation as a trustworthy
resource person during crisis or conflict.
And stuffit writes in to suggest these
resources from Seeds for Change on consensus-based decision making,
then notes:
My particular interest is that concensus is
all very well when there is plenty of time allocated to the process;
what happens when a group needs to make decisions fast?
One other model is the Zapatista method of organising - roles
within the group are rotated incredibly often, once a week.Whilst
initially being quite time consuming as people have to familiarise
new roles and experiences they are also claiming it is a wonderful
and practical way to teach people *real* politics. (see
related information
on the Zapatistas)
Another strategy comes from pirates of around the 17th Century,
since many historical pirate groups were much more revolutionary
than most people realise. On pirate ships it was a common practice
for the captain to be elected by direct democracy. Additionally,
in many cases the captain was only actually in command during
battle. The rest of the time the coordination of shipboard logistics
was coordinated by others (like the quartermaster) and the captain
did the same work as the rest of the crew. If, after a battle
or at any other point, the crew became disatisfied with their
captain they could simply recall their current captain and elect
a new one.
Update, January 10, 2006: Bob Welsh writes in about
his experiences with nonviolent communication:
I'm certainly not an expert in this NVC field,
but I recently took a workshop series in "Compassionate Communication"
- taught by a certified trainer with the Center for Nonviolent
Communication (Marshall Rosenberg's org).
Info: http://www.empathy-conexus.com/
Resources: http://gorjohn.hypermart.net/resources.htm
There were a couple of encouraging aspects of this workshop that
I was
surprised and pleased to see:
-
Acknowledgement that non-violent communications may not address
all situations. It's totally appropriate to defend yourself
if you need to with methods outside the bounds of non-violent
communications. (I had personally addressed the trainer's
clarifications of the "boundaries" of NVC - i.e. where might
it not apply?). He was quite open to discussing this.
-
Acknowledgment that non-violent communication seeks to improve
the connection between (and respect for) people - not just
to "get what you want" or to "win an argument" via discussion.
-
Marshall Rosenberg specifically has had some good results
in dealing with very conflicted groups - such as a gathering
of members of two neighboring ethnic communities who have
actually killed members of each other's groups.
-
The individual "enlightenment" aspect of most modern "spiritual"
quests today has the individual seeking personal enlightenment,
but that is not enough; we as a people must figure out ways
(or relearn what we've forgotten) to get along with each other,
not just to enlighten ourselves and everything else be damned.
(Not news to me, but encouraging to hear this from the NVC
perspective - albeit heavily influenced by this specific trainer's
Rudolf Steiner background too).
I came away from this workshop with more tools
to address and defuse difficult situations in a nonviolent fashion
- but without having an absolute ban (as many pacifists would
argue) applied to violence of any sort (i.e. self-defense).
Update, February 23, 2006: Generally related to security
issues, see my comments on the fascinating story of a
group of Jews who hid from Nazis in a cave for nearly a year.
|
Return
to top